RL30299: Campaign Finance Debate in the 106th Congress:
Comparison of Measures Under House Consideration
Joseph E. Cantor
Specialist in American National Government
Government & Finance Division
Updated January 12, 2000
CONTENTS
List of Tables
Table 1. Comparison of Current Law,
Shays-Meehan Bill, and Perfecting Amendments, by Category
Summary
The House of Representatives considered campaign finance
reform on September 14, 1999, culminating in passage of H.R. 417 (Shays-Meehan),
as amended.
Under H.Res. 283, a rule
reported by the House Rules Committee on September 8 (H.Rept. 106-311)
and passed by the House on a voice vote on September 14, the Shays-Meehan bill was the
base bill for consideration. As reported unfavorably by the House Administration
Committee, H.R. 417
was a slightly revised version of the bill that passed the House in the 105th
Congress, featuring restrictions on soft money and issue advocacy (the Senate did not vote
on the companion McCain-Feingold bill in the 105th Congress).
The rule also made in order 10 perfecting amendments to H.R. 417, to be
considered in the following order: Whitfield #24; Whitfield #23; Doolittle #26;
Bereuter/Wicker #6; Faleomavaega #1; Goodling #15; Shaw/Calvert/Gallegly #5; Sweeney #21;
DeLay #27; and Ewing #18.
Following consideration of the perfecting amendments, the
proposed rule allowed for consideration of three amendments in the nature of a substitute.
These measures incorporated the texts of three bills also reported by the House
Administration Committee (the first two without recommendation, the third favorably),
listed in the order of House consideration: Doolittle (H.R. 1922),
Hutchinson-Brady-Moran (KS), (H.R. 1867), and Thomas (H.R. 2668). The
Hutchinson bill, the so-called "freshman" bill of the 105th Congress,
proposed more limited restrictions on soft money than Shays-Meehan and only partial
disclosure for issue advocacy. The Doolittle measure, an alternative approach from the 105th
Congress, proposed deregulation of campaign finance practices, through elimination of
contribution limits and the presidential public finance system, and a requirement for
expedited disclosure of campaign finances. The Thomas bill proposed relatively
noncontroversial changes in federal election law, to improve enforcement and disclosure
under existing law.
On September 14, the House passed H.R. 417 on a vote of
252-177, as amended by three perfecting amendments: Bereuter/Wicker #6; Faleomavaega #1;
and Sweeney #21.
This report features two tables. Table 1 summarizes and
compares the ten perfecting amendments, current law, and the Shays-Meehan proposal. Table
2 summarizes and compares current law, the Shays-Meehan bill, and the three substitute
amendments.
The House of Representatives considered the issue of
campaign finance reform on September 14, 1999, under H.Res. 283, a rule
reported by the House Rules Committee on September 8 (H.Rept. 106-311)
and adopted on a voice vote by the House on September 14. The rule designated as the base
bill H.R. 417
(Shays-Meehan), a slightly revised version of the bill passed by the House in the 105th
Congress (the Senate did not vote on the companion McCain-Feingold bill).
As reported unfavorably by the House Administration
Committee on August 2 (H.Rept. 106-297,
Pt. 1), H.R. 417
featured restrictions on soft money and issue advocacy, among its many other provisions.
On September 14, the House passed H.R. 417 on a vote of
252-177, as amended by three perfecting amendments: Bereuter/Wicker #6; Faleomavaega #1;
and Sweeney #21 (see summaries below).(1)
Perfecting Amendments
The proposed rule made in order ten perfecting amendments
to H.R. 417. These
amendments are identified below, in required order of consideration, by sponsor name and
amendment number, followed by the category in which each appears in Table 1, a capsule
summary, and floor outcome.
- Whitfield #24 -- Individuals
Increases limit on contributions to candidates to $3,000.
Failed (127-300).
- Whitfield #23 -- Individuals
Increases aggregate annual limit to $75,000. Failed
(123-302).
- Doolittle #26 -- Issue Advocacy
Changes bill's voter guide exemption, from express
advocacy definition. Failed (189-238).
- Bereuter/Wicker #6 -- Foreign
Prohibits financial activity in federal elections by
non-citizens or non-U.S. nationals (including permanent resident aliens). Adopted
(242-181).
- Faleomavaega #1 -- Foreign
Clarifies law to exempt U.S. nationals from the ban on
foreign national financing of U.S. elections. Adopted (voice vote).
- Goodling #15 -- Soft Money: Non-Party
Removes Beck provision in H.R. 417; requires prior
approval by all workers in agency shops before dues or agency fees may be used for
purposes other than collective bargaining. Withdrawn.
- Shaw/Calvert/Gallegly #5 -- In-state/In-district
Requires 50% of House and Senate campaign funds to come
from in-state residents. Failed (179-248).
- Sweeney #21 -- Misc. (Fundraising on Government Property)
Requires federal candidates (not in federal office) who use
government vehicles for campaign purposes to reimburse Treasury at full cost. Adopted
(261-167).
- DeLay #27 -- Advertising / Public Communications
Exempts communications on the Internet, not including
fundraising, from coverage under Federal Election Campaign Act, as amended by H.R. 417. Failed
(160-268).
- Ewing #18 -- Miscellaneous (Severability)
Removes severability clause in H.R. 417; declares entire
Act or any amendment thereto to be invalid if any part of the Act is so declared. Failed
(167-259).
Table 1 provides fuller summaries of these perfecting
amendments and compares each of them to current law and the Shays-Meehan bill, as
proposed.
Substitute Amendments
Following consideration of the perfecting amendments, the
proposed rule mandated consideration of three additional measures as amendments in the
nature of a substitute. The substitute amendments incorporated the texts of three bills
reported on August 2 by the House Administration Committee, when it also reported the
Shays-Meehan bill. The substitutes, in order of House consideration, were:
- Doolittle--an alternative approach from the 105th Congress, proposing
deregulation of campaign finance practices, through eliminating contribution limits and
the presidential public finance system, and requiring expedited disclosure (text of H.R. 1922, reported
without recommendation by House Administration Committee on August 2, 1999: H.Rept. 106-296,
Pt. 1). Failed House passage (117-306).
- Hutchinson-Brady-Moran (KS)--the so-called "freshman" proposal of the 105th
Congress, proposing more limited restrictions on soft money than Shays-Meehan and partial
disclosure only for issue advocacy (text of H.R. 1867, reported
without recommendation by House Administration Committee on August 2, 1999: H.Rept. 106-294).
Failed House passage (99-327).
- Thomas--House Administration Committee bill, proposing relatively noncontroversial
changes in federal election law, to improve enforcement and disclosure under existing law
(text of H.R. 2668,
reported favorably by the House Administration Committee on August 2, 1999: H.Rept. 106-295).
Failed House passage (173-256).
These three measures are summarized in Table 2, and
compared with each other, Shays-Meehan, as proposed, and current law.
Table 1. Comparison of Current Law,
Shays-Meehan Bill, and Perfecting Amendments, by Category
| Current Law |
H.R. 417
(Shays-Meehan) |
Perfecting
Amendment |
| HARD MONEY |
| Individuals |
Contribution limit: $1,000 per candidate, per election (since 1974, not
indexed)
[2 USC§441a(a)(1)] |
No provision |
Whitfield #24
Raises limit to $3,000 per candidate, per election |
| Aggregate limit: $25,000 per year on total contributions to federal
candidates, parties, PACs [2 USC.§441a(a)(3)] |
Raises limit to $30,000 per year [Sec. 102] |
Whitfield #23
Raises limit to $75,000 per year |
| In-state/In-district |
| No requirement |
No provision |
Shaw/Calvert/Gallegly#5
Requires House & Senate candidates to raise at least 50% of funds from in-state
residents (counts half of party contributions as local); penalty for violation--greater of
200% of excess amt., or amt. of in-state individual contributions
Removes above requirement for a candidate whose opponent (incl. spouse) spends over
$250,000 from personal funds |
| SOFT MONEY |
| Non-Party |
Worker dues
Per Beck and other court rulings, non-members paying dues as condition of
employment must be given, if requested, pro rata rebates of agency fees spent for
non-collective bargaining purposes |
Requires unions to give reasonable notice to dues-paying non-members of rights
regarding use of their funds for political purposes (so-called Beck
"codification") [Sec. 501] |
Goodling #15
Removes Beck provision of H.R. 417
Requires unions in agency shops to get prior authorization from all dues-paying workers
before any dues money is used for non-collective bargaining purposes
Requires employers to post prominent notice to workers of this rule
Requires unions to report by functional category under labor law's disclosure rules
Requires disclosure to all workers about union political spending
Requires Secretary of Labor to prescribe regulations within 60 days, regarding notices,
and within 120 days, regarding disclosure to workers |
| ISSUE ADVOCACY |
Voter guides
Non-political committee voter guides are outside purview of FECA, if they avoid explicit
advocacy language
(Conflicting court rulings have made it difficult for the FEC to enforce part of a
regulation which allows a "reasonable person" standard for determining if a
communication by a non-political committee constitutes "expressly advocating;"
FEC has observed a stricter test for such determinations, and hence FECA coverage, i.e.,
that message contains explicit words such as "vote for" or "defeat"
[11 CFR §100.22] |
Exempts from bill's express advocacy definition, printed/Internet voting guides or
records on one or more candidates, which: (1) taken as a whole do not express unambiguous
support for candidates (but may include agreement or disagreement with candidate views);
(2) are not coordinated with a candidate/party (but allow questions/responses for guides);
and (3) contain no words or phrases that in context have no reasonable meaning other than
election advocacy [Sec. 201] |
Doolittle #26
Replaces H.R. 417
provision with exemption for: printed/Internet communications which provide information or
commentary on voting record or issue positions of a federal candidate or officeholder,
unless explicit words expressly urging vote for or against an identified candidate or
party are used |
| FOREIGN MONEY |
Prohibits direct or indirect contributions or anything of value, or their
solicitation, from foreign nationals, in connection with election to any political office;
exempts permanent resident aliens
[2 USC §441e] |
Bans direct or indirect donations (meant to incl. soft money) or their
solicitation, from foreign nationals to a candidate, party, or committee in connection
with any U.S. election (retains resident alien exemption)
[Sec. 506] |
Bereuter/Wicker #6
Prohibits financial activity in federal elections by anyone who is neither a U.S.
citizen nor U.S. national (ban includes permanent resident aliens) |
| Ban on contributions by or solicitation from foreign nationals exempts only permanent
resident aliens [2 USC §441e(b)] |
Does not change law's definition of who constitutes a permissible source |
Faleomavaega #1
Exempts U.S. nationals from law's ban on foreign national contributions in U.S. elections |
| ADVERTISING / PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS |
| Law appears to be unclear as to whether FECA covers communications over the Internet |
No provision |
DeLay #27
Exempts activities conducted or information disseminated on the Internet from FECA limits,
prohibitions, and reporting requirements, except for Internet use for soliciting or
receiving contributions |
| MISCELLANEOUS |
| Fundraising on Government Property |
Justice Dept. memos require reimbursement to Treasury for costs of political
activities incurred in presidential travel [6 Op. O.L.C. 214 (1982); 14 Op. O.L.C. 157
(1990)]
FEC regulations require allocation of political and official expenses [11 CFR § 106.3,
9004.7, & 9034.7] |
Requires national parties to reimburse Treasury at fair market charter rate for use of
Air Force 1 to raise money for party [Sec. 1001] |
Sweeney #21
Requires federal candidates (not holding federal office) who use federal government
vehicles for campaign purposes to reimburse Treasury at full cost |
| Severability |
| If any provision of Act is held unconstitutional, remainder of Act is to be unaffected
[2 USC §454] |
If any provision of Act or statute is held invalid, remainder of Act and statute will
be unaffected [Sec. 1601] |
Ewing #18
Removes H.R. 417
provision
If any provision of Act or any amendment is held invalid, remainder of Act and statute
will be invalid |
Footnotes
1. (back) A is used to highlight
perfecting amendments adopted by the House.
Return to CONTENTS section of this Long Report.
|
CRS Reports Home
